Virginia Auto Dealer Association Wants Investigation Into Tesla, Claims EV Company Is Acting Illegally

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Originally published on EV Obsession.

Things seem to be heating up between Tesla and various auto-dealer associations around the country lately, with a number of new lawsuits and public complaints going through in recent days.

Amongst those is a new complaint from the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association that alleges that Tesla has committed illegal acts at its authorized dealership in Tyson’s Corners, as well as at its nearby shopping mall gallery/store.

tesla-store


 

The complaint, filed with the state’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, alleges that Tesla “has done such heinous things as offering customers test drives, fudging official reports on state mandated fees, and engaging in illegal advertising. It stops just short of charging Tesla with mopery on the high seas,”  summarized.

The CEO of Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, Don Hall, wrote: “VADA believes it has a duty to bring these repeated violations to the attention of the MVDB so that the MVDB may protect its credibility in the face of such reckless law-breaking.”

Steve, on sister site Gas2, provides more:

In an email to Automotive News, he added that the Motor Vehicle Dealer Board, the state agency charged with oversight of the auto dealer industry, has “100% authority to stop Tesla, thus our letter.”

Tesla has applied for a second dealership license in Virginia. The VADA vehemently opposes that request. In fact, it has sued the company and the state Department of Motor Vehicles to block the application. In its letter, it asks for an investigation into all of Tesla’s activities within the Commonwealth. The Virginia Automobile Dealers Association is calling on state regulators to investigate and sanction Tesla Motors for alleged violations at its existing locations in the state.

Company spokesperson Khobi Brooklyn told Automotive News in an e-mail, “The franchised dealer lobby in Virginia is taking every possible step, whether through lawsuits, PR campaigns or outright harassment, to try to prevent Virginians from being able to buy cars from Tesla. Each of these actions is legally wrongful and threatens to move Virginia backwards. Virginians who would like to be able to buy a car from Tesla should have the right to do so. Tesla will continue to fight for that.”

Considering that shopping for a car at an auto dealership is practically a universally maligned experience, you’d think that maybe the dealers would be working to improve on that count rather than (seemingly) spend all of their time and money fighting Tesla.


Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book

Holiday Wish Book Cover

Click to download.


Our Latest EVObsession Video


I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
 
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
 
Thank you!

Advertisement
 
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

James Ayre

James Ayre's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy.

James Ayre has 4830 posts and counting. See all posts by James Ayre

54 thoughts on “Virginia Auto Dealer Association Wants Investigation Into Tesla, Claims EV Company Is Acting Illegally

  • I would love to see this picked up by political satirists on tv and in newspapers. These clowns need to be publicly roasted for years.

    • Yeah, spot on. It’s ridiculous.

    • Or at least a spot on John Oliver.

  • Every comment from Tesla should contain something about how dealership agencies are attempting to destroy the free market.

    It’s about time for Tesla to challenge these restrictive trade practices in court. Since Tesla is a California company it seems that they could challenge in a federal court and the finding would then apply in all states. Vested interests are interfering with interstate commerce.

    I would imagine Tesla has this all gamed out….

    • History has shown that dealership lobbies own the courts.

      Just like how billionaires own Congress.

      From the perspective of a millenial, I don’t know what a real free market looks like. I’ve never been in one.

      • Local courts, perhaps.

      • No one’s ever actually been in a real free market. If you go by Adam Smith’s mandates, you would need perfect information and perfect mobility; the poor never have those so labor markets are never truly functional. In a perfectly competitive market, profits would always go down to zero, so the investors would go away. Look at the early price crises in the oil industry, in the 1890s and 1930s. Wildcatters moved in on a big strike, flooded the market, and then got stuck having to produce more and more to stay ahead of their debts, making the price problem worse. The first time, oligarchs like Rockefeller were allowed to destroy the little guys so as to restore order and tax revenues. The 2nd time, it got so hairy that TX and OK’s governors sent in troops both to fight over disputed border fields and to shut down wildcatters to restore prices. That led to the TX Railroad Commission being converted into a quota-setting board for Big Oil, acting as a global cartel for the next 30 years until OPEC seized that role. Yet it was fantastically successful.

        But car dealers and radio/TV station owners do seem to be the perfect size of mini-oligarch to dominate a US Representative, and thus always get what they want.

        • TX oil industry history is interesting. Tks.

    • If I remember right, Tesla wants to stay out of court’ unlike Trump. Isn’t that the reason Elon opened up his patents? Tesla has enough orders on the books. Maybe as the EV industry matures and the people become more educated and interested, demand from within the state will complain about their rights being violated. Its the peoples rights that the law makers will here the most.

  • The Justice dept. needs to start a nationwide investigation into the fraud committed by Stealership service departments every day in every way. Let’s start putting these crooks behind bars. With such wide spread fraud being committed, does this make the NADA party to these crimes?

    • agree!

  • Revolt of the candlemakers.

  • I remember one time when I felt really desperate. My girlfriend became interested in a guy who was really way, way cooler than me. This kinda feels like that.

    • So, did you succeed in having him expelled from school and forced to move out of state? This kinda feels as ridiculous as that, too.

  • Oooh, committing illegal acts at authorized dealerships. The adult version is already set for production:
    Titla – The Sordid Story of Elon Musky and His Battery Powered Bimbos

  • This is why republicans have obviated their right to speak freely, they don’t believe a word they say. They just want power so they can tell others what to do and how to live. I have been challenging the republicans I know to tell me ONE thing the GOP has done for the American people and they cannot come up with anything except empty claims about how they prevented disasters.

    • Terminating the first amendment is a cure FAR worse than the disease, don’tcha think?

      • Yes, let them speak. Just stop listening to them or giving their point any serious consideration since they will change their position when it suits their overlords.

        • Because we know Democrats are models of integrity and independence from lobbyists, thus making competition in politics unnecessary. Don’t bother your pretty head actually thinking about each issue or evaluating candidates on their own merits, just tic that Democrat straight party box every election. That’ll being reform! /s

          • I believe that if we were to elect only Democrats for a few cycles the grown ups who call themselves republicans would retake control of their party from the crazies and give us politicians like Ike that we could work with.

            In the meantime we would enact universal health care, get money out of politics, restore sensible gun control, provide debt-free college, upgrade our infrastructure, restore voting rights for everyone, enact progressive taxation and if we have enough time bring back unicorns;-)

            Sure beats the unending wars, sexism, racism, religious intolerance and economic calamity the republicans bring us. BTW: It doesn’t matter what republican candidate you elect, they all have to fall lock-step in with their party after they take office and do what their overlords tell them to do, or get primaried.

            As with Will Rogers, “I do not belong to any organized political party, I am a Democrat.”

          • You assume that electoral failure will cause the Republicans to adjust their positions to the left, but that electoral success will not cause the Democrats to adjust their positions to the right or take advantage of their power in a self-serving way. That’s naive IMHO.

            Claiming the Republicans are “in lockstep” after 17 (!) presidential candidates with quite different positions is rather suspect as well. Certainly they all disagreed with your positions, but your positions are quite far to the left (you are a fan of Mr. Sanders, I believe?).

            For those reasons, and also perhaps because I believe in the managed competition of capitalism rather than the dictatorial force of monopolies or socialism, I firmly but respectfully contend that forcing politicians to win my thoughtful vote, and especially supporting those who support e.g., clean energy, will result in far more positive change than robotically voting Democrat in every election.

          • Clean energy (rather their opposition to it), science denial, religious intolerance, voter suppression, more regressive taxes and much, much more… all 17 of those candidates were in lock-step on those points which is why only the most outrageous of them prevailed. The crazies on the far right have taken over and eliminated any possibility that the current party will, unlike in the past, ever get my vote.

          • “Clean energy (rather their opposition to it) … all 17 of those candidates were in lock-step on those points”

            THANK YOU! You made my point far more powerfully for me than my own words ever could. Your ignorance (I mean this non-pejoratively) of their actual positions is the result of your robotic Democratic vote.

            For example:

            Bobby Jindal (Aug 2014 Energy Plan): “Principle #2: Encourage Technological Innovation of Renewables and Emerging Energy Resources… While still not fully price competitive with conventional alternatives in most situations, renewables can be the lowest cost resource in some cases. With very low pollutants—none from operation—and a high degree of cost predictability, renewables can be an intelligent part of an overall energy strategy.”

            Chris Christie (May 2015): “Climate change is real and at least partially man-made. We have worked with the private sector to make solar energy affordable and available to businesses and individuals in our state. And as governor, I signed a bill to expand renewable energy in New Jersey by bringing wind turbines to the state’s coastline.”

            Rick Perry (From the NY Times, Aug 21, 2011):

            “‘Arguably, Mr. Perry’s most interesting energy efforts have related to wind power, which has boomed under his administration. Today, after a decade of rapid growth, Texas is the nation’s wind leader. The groundwork was laid by Mr. Bush, who in 1999 signed a bill that — besides deregulating the electric sector — established a renewable-energy requirement that kick-started wind development.

            “But Mr. Perry has added to that. In 2005, he signed a bill requiring Texas to have 5,880 megawatts of renewables capacity by 2015. The state has already surpassed that requirement.

            “Mr. Perry has also strongly backed a $5 billion project to build transmission lines to ferry power from remote West Texas to big cities. “He has been a stalwart in defense of wind energy in this state — no question about it,” said Paul Sadler, executive director of the Wind Coalition. An extra charge of up to $5 per month on Texans’ electric bills will pay for construction of the lines.”

            I could go on, but it only takes one example to refute an absolute. I gave 3. Q.E.D.

            You said “all 17 of those candidates were in lock-step on those points”, which is obviously wrong – which you would know except for stubbornly locking yourself in a Democratic echo chamber.

            Please understand that none of this is to attack you, but rather to illustrate why supporting the BEST candidate is a better strategy both for you as a voter as well as for the country than robotically voting Democrat.

            Best wishes.

          • Jindal: this has been the approach of Republicans for decades: promote cleantech R&D as a good PR campaign but oppose what really makes a different.

            Chris Christie has taken an axe to NJ renewable policies. yes, he is a slick communicator and makes you think he cares, but he’s been a horrible governor on that topic and many others.

            Rick Perry: i don’t actually think he’s a horrible person. but i think he’s still heavily beholden to the fossil fuel industry (note that wind is big business in Texas, and it has the money to influence Perry.)

            wind in Texas: i don’t know anything about the 1999 deal that “kickstarted” wind, but deregulation of the electricity industry has left Texas with some big problems. that said, wind’s competitiveness and thanks good wind resources in Texas certainly helped make Texas a wind leader. note that even in your quote, you can see that wind far surpassed Perry’s requirement due to actual competitiveness. you can set a requirement that Djokovic get to the second round in a tournament, but it doesn’t really matter since he’ll easily do so anyway.

            but come on, you know Rick Perry denied AGW and would be a big supporter of fossil fuels as president…. he’d be my first choice from this list (obviously, Graham would be my first choice from the 17 contenders), but he’d be a disaster nonetheless. Bush 3.0…

          • What big problems has deregulation of the electricity industry caused in Texas? Honest question – I’ve lived here for 30 years, and still haven’t noticed anything particularly big.

            If you’ll trace the tread, you’ll find we were discussing whether “all 17 Republican candidates walk in lockstep on all the issues”. My examples, and your own post – how would you rank your preference for candidates who are all identical? – demonstrate they do not. And thus, to move Republicans toward a more reasonable environmental policy, we should *engage* with them, not ignore them.

            That was the topic, and at no point did I argue, nor would I argue, that Republicans have an acceptable record on the environment. Promoting coal frankly sucks.

          • I agree with your comments. There are some Republicans who are big wind proponents in Texas (mostly West Texas) due to the support of their communities with wind jobs and the wind tax base.

            It is easy to say that Texas should be a lot further along with wind, but there are other factors at play rather than just political will. The state has made some tremendous advancements and will continue along that path in the next decade as solar and energy storage are now growing, too.

          • I am happy Texas has gotten as far as it has with wind; and I hope they go further. As a state with one of the highest amounts of sun, why don’t we have a bigger solar power industry? And solar rooftop industry?

            Houston claims to be the “energy capital of the world.” “Energy” means all types of energy not just “oil & gas”. To be the true “energy capital” we need to have all forms of energy.

          • The cost of solar has historically been quite high, while the cost of wind is fairly competitive (federal incentives made it more so). So the Texas power plans under Bush and Perry emphasized wind incentives and, of course, natural gas, which we have in abundance.

            Given the rapid advance in solar technology, the 2015 Texas power plan for the next 5 years placed pretty heavy emphasis on expanding the use of solar, if I remember correctly. So I suspect solar’s portion of grid electrification will grow fairly rapidly just as electric car use expands. How synergistic. (Now if we could just sell Teslas here! 🙁 )

          • Thanks for the information. I hope Texas does expand solar & yes, allow Tesla to sell here.

          • I would point out that we have reached our capacity on the CREZ (transmission lines) in West Texas. It won’t do any good to add more wind out there, if there are no lines to send it east. Some in the state are trying to put the cost of new transmission lines clearly on the wind providers rather than spreading this cost across all power plants. That would make it difficult to add more wind in these areas. (Too bad we aren’t putting similar “costs” on fossil fuels.)

            The issue with West Texas wind is that it just does not do very well in the summer. Wind should be able to produce close to 20% of our electricity per year, plus another 20% or so if we take advantage of south Texas (where the wind is much more consistent during the summer.) Taller turbines in West Texas will help, too. The 40% would be an average for the whole year. During the non-summer months, we could easily exceed 100% with just wind.

            This really does open the door for solar now. It is becoming very price competitive in the state and does not require being built out in BFE. It also addresses the concern for summer days and not needing a long distance on transmission lines. I believe we have 1 GW confirmed for 2017 along with some energy storage projects.

            We were at under 3% wind in 2007. There is a good chance we will end 2016 with wind (and solar) closing in at 16%. This sounds pretty amazing, especially when you consider that over the same time period our electricity consumption for the state has grown by 17%.

          • “Deregulation” in Houston, Texas has forced us to sign multi year contracts to “energy billers”. They add no value, only cost. They simply read the meters and bill us as much as they can. When you contract runs out, your rate goes up. Why in the world should I have to research my electricity rate year after year. And they are all scams with hidden fees everywhere! There are no rebates for conserving energy (insulation, window film, solar panels, etc.).

            Questions:
            1.
            Whose idea was deregulation in Texas? I think is was the people that gave us Enron, right?

            2. What do the “little old ladies” do about figuring out what energy biller to use? I doubt they can research options on the internet. They are probably paying the highest rates in Texas.

            3. We have (see note above):
            -A Billing Company
            -A distribution utility company
            -A power company

            All maximizing their profits.

            A true deregulated market would enable me to buy the power I want from the source I want at the lowest price possible. If should be able to buy energy from a nuclear plant, a wind farm, a solar plant, a gas plant or a coal plant. But energy distribution is not efficient that way. We have to buy whatever power is on our electrical power line (unless we add solar rooftop).

            So what is the use of a deregulated electrical utility?

            What are the benefits to society / the end consumer?

          • That’s interesting. I looked around, and can’t seem to verify what you’re saying. I would appreciate some help understanding your issues.

            I entered zip code 77014 (a Houston zip code, since I don’t know yours) into powertochoose dot org, and saw exactly 332 plans from which you should be able to choose (see image) starting at 1 cent per kWh (for 1,000 kWh per month usage – see the fact sheet for details) and for terms as short as 3 months. What leads you to believe you are required to sign a multi-year contract?

            I also note that you have a lot of options in the fuel used to generate your power, from the standard grid mix (11% renewable) to 100% wind to 100% renewables to 100% natural gas, and some options in between. What prevents you from buying the power that you want from the source that you want at the lowest price you can find?

            According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, when deregulation took effect, the cost of electricity in Texas averaged 13 cents per kWh in 2016 dollars. Today it averages 11 cents per kWh, about 18% less. The price rose faster than the national average from 2003 to 2009, but has dropped rapidly thereafter and is now well below the national average. What leads you to believe that the cost of electricity has risen rather than dropped overall since deregulation?

            These are all honest questions. Perhaps I’m missing something? I seem to have a lot of choices here, and my power is dirt cheap – but I live in DFW, so perhaps Houston is different in some way?

            In answer to your specific questions:

            1. I can find no evidence that anyone related to Enron was involved in Texas electricity market reform. Was this a joke, perhaps?

            2. According to the EIA, 85% of Texans have changed providers at least once since deregulation. But I also get paper mails with offers for low rate electricity – got one today, actually, from Reliant Energy. Of course, little old ladies may have a hard time shopping for ANYTHING given the importance of the Internet in shopping today, but would you insist that the government should select everyone’s products to keep little old ladies from needing to shop?

            3. OK, Econ 101 here and for your last two questions, aka “how markets work”.

            In most markets, you have different companies that manufacture, distribute, and then retail commercial products.

            The manufacturer of electricity is the power generation company. You don’t contract with those directly, because they think in terms of megawatt-hours, and you don’t use enough to matter to them – just as you don’t buy your coffee beans from the grower in Columbia directly, because they just want to sell them all in bulk at a profit and not deal with a bazillion finicky Americanos individually.

            The distributor of electricity is the distribution company, in your case Oncor. They are in fact a regulated monopoly in Texas, because of the high cost of competitive entry (i.e., running new power lines costs too much to have competition in power distribution).

            The retailer of electricity is what you call the “biller”. They buy power from the power generation company in bulk, and collect money from each consumer to pay the generation company and Oncor. And yes, they keep a portion of the proceeds for themselves. Would you work for free? *shrug*

            The reason we divide the product chain into these three market segments is efficiency. The skills needed to generate power, distribute power, and deal with consumers are each quite different, so different companies specialize in one area each and (except for Oncor) compete with each other to be more efficient. It is this competition to be more efficient and to win business that has driven down the cost of power compared to the prior single regulated monopoly.

            We had a single regulated monopoly handling all 3 functions in 2002, prior to deregulation. Since power costs are lower now than they were (inflation adjusted), and we can now vote with our dollars for renewable energy rather that being with the primarily coal that we used before, I believe this system has proven it’s effectiveness in the power industry as in most other market segments. And THAT is the use of a deregulated electric utility and the benefit to society / the end consumer, to address your final two questions.

            Hope this helps.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0601345c82768028a660a3d41f938cd1684ada6453e0d92c71aa17c15e065964.png

          • Zac, I don’t believe that deregulation hurt Texas. The one item that hurt Texas was when some money men raided TXU (at the time) and created Luminant, which now has an incredible amount of debt. That was a byproduct of regulation, but overall it has actually been the reason that wind has flourished.

            I get your point about setting a low bar for renewables, plus actively pushing coal. Rick Perry nor most Republicans in the state are not friends to renewables.

          • I live in Houston, Texas. I am happily surprised that we have wind energy. “Deregulation” of the energy market in Texas; has done nothing but give more money to “billing agencies” in Houston. I have the “freedom” to decide which company to read my meter and charge me as much as possible with as many add-on fees that they can come up with. So in this “deregulated” Houston market, I have a

            1. Billing Company that passes on fees from the
            2. Distribution company (CenterPoint) where the energy comes from the
            3. Power Plant company.

            So instead of having (1) regulated utility that can create a “fair” profit for the benefit of society & we can require rebates for energy efficiency; Houston has three companies trying to make as much profit as possible with no recourse for the consumer. Actually, if we want to try to negotiate the lowest kWh charge possible, we have to sign a 3 year contract. And the companies still increase their “fees” year after year. The only positive part in Texas seems to be Austin that has created an energy Co-Op.

          • …and there’s a reason Donald ran on the Republican side of things…

            1) more tax cuts for the rich, 2) such ignorant racism that he doesn’t even think it’s racism, 3) unwillingness to listen to the consensus formed by thousands of scientists on a specific topic (climate). those are really the 3 big ones, imho. and yes, almost every GOP candidate for president pushed 1) favoring the rich over the rest of the country, 2) racist policies and commentary, 3) denial of human-caused-climate catastrophe, or at the very least, hostility to critical solutions.

          • How did Donald Trump get dragged into this? Yes, he’s a horrible candidate. Hillary is a crook. Bernie is an honest politician (God help him), and I’d vote for him if he could just wrest the nomination away from Hillary, but that seems to have been blocked before the first vote was cast.

            But none of this is related to the topic we were discussing. 🙂

          • ” Hillary is a crook. Bernie is an honest politician”

            Hillary is not a crook.

            And Bernie has not been totally honest. In fact, when candidates campaign statements were fact checked Hillary came out as the most honest of all people running.

          • Managed competition of capitalism had its chance; that was the deal FDR gave the oligarchs, but it was conditional on their not trying to sabotage it. Which is what Ronald Reagan was all about. He wanted to erase the New Deal but knew he couldn’t do it in his lifetime, so he facilitated the infiltration of extremists into government and media to rewrite the history of laissez faire and blame all problems on Democratic constituencies, meaning minorities and women, with the implied promise that going back to the Gilded Age would be some sort of glorious revenge (“Morning in America”). People had forgotten what the Depression was like; the union-less Democrats chickened out and moved Right to survive, and the seeds of future disasters like NAFTA, financial deregulation and workfare became bipartisan consensus. Calling what we have had since “managed” is a sick joke.

            2008 was the third time America’s economic rulers wrecked the country (after 1860 and 1929). Yet all the lies of those dead elites are still repeated and believed today, from White supremacy to Social Darwinism to “self-regulating markets”. Three strikes applies to pot smokers, but not the rich?

          • The Republicans have had 17 Presidential candidates with no positions, all of whom do what their wealthy paymasters tell them to — and it’s the *same* wealthy paymasters for all 17 of them (Koch Brothers, Scaife, etc.)

          • i’m not confident we’d get money out of politics, enact truly progressive taxation, or provide debt-free college. but none would be completely out of the question, as they are with the GOP in control.

            And agree with the general point.

          • Once one side votes straight ticket on the understood agenda of creating a one-party state, the other side has no choice but to do the same to protect itself. The Founding Fathers knew that in this way, parties would lead to factions and eventually civil war. Countless influential right-wing leaders, meaning radio hate-talk hosts, preachers at their pulpits, and of course Congressmen and governors, have accused Democrats, Latinos, Blacks, environmentalists, and antiwar people of treason. They’ve even called for them to be shot or put in concentration camps. They’ve written Voter ID laws custom-designed to lower minority turnout and favor gun owners over college students. They even have movements to rewrite the Lincoln amendments to selectively revoke citizenship, and to have a Constitutional Convention by which they claim a minority of “real” Americans can force the Federal government to essentially be overthrown.

            It was proven this year that if you went after all those supposed “fringe” elements, you could actually get a GOP nomination for the presidency. Trump simply got rid of the Reagan-era code words that respectable conservatives hide behind so as to harness racism for their goal of infinite economic inequality. Trump’s supporters want all the above things to finally be done, instead of another tax cut for the rich that was supposed to magically have the same effect.

            This is nothing less than what happened in South Africa in 1948 when the redneck gun-nut Afrikaners overthrew the respectable bourgeois English-speakers to prevent Blacks from getting the right to vote. Those Afrikaners more closely resemble American conservatives than anyone left else today. The subsequent horror we know as Apartheid was simply the logical process of holding on to power by any means.

            It’s not about reform anymore, it’s about what terms we fight the Second Civil War on.

          • Absolutely correct, super390.

          • Why have you fallen into the two-party trap?

            There is *never ever* any reason to vote for Republicans, who have proven to be somewhere between idiots and frauds in every election for a long time now. The last Republican I respected at a statewide level anywhere in the US is Charlie Crist, and he’s a Democrat now. At the city level, I guess Ashley Swearingen is OK, but that’s the only example I can think of nationwide.

            However, there have been elections where I’ve been disgusted enough with the Democrat to vote Green or other third party.

          • What makes you think I’ve fallen into the two party trap? I’ve voted both Green and Libertarian when their candidates were the best available.

            And if you’ll read the thread, that’s the position ***I*** was arguing in opposition to halslater’s position that voting a straight Democratic ticket was the only reasonable course for an environmentalist! A voter should engage their brain, don’t presuppose candidate positions, and make each and every candidate EARN their vote. If you robotically vote Democrat every election, why should ANY candidate care what you think? You’ve squandered your leverage!

            Doesn’t anyone read context around here anymore?

          • I liked Ike.

            Probably wouldn’t have voted for him due to his VP pick. Was a bit young at the time….

    • “prevented disasters.”
      — haha. perhaps because their media and Congresspeople are nonstop telling them about disasters that are going to happen
      … because black man is president, because scientists trying to protect human civilization, because industry not allowed to put deadly chemicals in your drinking water….

      to be completely honest, it’s just sad. many Republican voters are seriously abused people. made to feel fear and hatred many times a day. not cool.

  • Virginia Auto Dealers Association. Dedicated to preserving the rights of motorists to be hassled by used car salesmen. LOL.

    • Right!

  • This type of stupidity is ready made for a skit on Saturday Night Live.

  • I hereby sign this waiver relinquishing all said “benefits” afforded me by the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association.

  • Great article. I want to reread it later on tonight and digest it a bit better. I guess I separated out deregulation from the TXU leveraged buyout. That was only allowed through deregulation, but it was just a bad business decision (profiteering.)

    Much has changed in the last two years due to the build out of wind. My understanding is that we have had a large reduction of blackouts. I know that wind came to the rescue many times in the winter of 2015.

    The question I wonder, is if we were regulated, would we have had such a rush and capability to build new wind, or would we have been stuck in the supplier’s game of keeping the older equipment in play.

    I don’t know the answer to that question. I am hoping that deregulation has hurt us in the short-term, but could be beneficial in the long game. It is tough to predict the future or a different outcome.

    • You make a good point about wind and I don’t know the answer. If the answer is that deregulation helped spur on window power generation; that I guess it was worth it.

Comments are closed.